Y’know, if the first sentence is true, you could have saved a lot of baby electrons by deciding to make this choice a great many posts ago.
EVERYONE:
as fractious as party politics (or commentaries thereon) get, they will more nearly be civil with a vague hope of a genuine discussion if we spend more time concentrating of the actual (perceived) issues and a LOT less time telling other posters how badly they argue.
[ /Moderately commenting ]
Yeah, Bush won despite questions about his service in the National Guard - even though he didn’t actually serve in the Vietnam War at all, unlike Kerry. Not to mention his history of drug use and failed business attempts. I would like to see the Democrats go a bit more on the offensive with issues like this, though I certainly don’t want our side to go Swift Boating the opposition. There’s plenty of legitimate issues to go after them on.
Yeah, hence the first two sentences of my post. I’m a bit rueful over having wasted time on his little game.
Er…so, the only chance a candidate has to win is to have previously run for President (and lost presumably)? Is that the theory in a nut shell?
thinks back I can’t for the life of me think of any candidate except Nixon who ran, lost, then ran again and won. I’m sure there must be a few but none except him spring to mind.
Its a facinating theory though. 
I’m sure it will work out really well for the Dems to run Kerry again since he did so well against GW. And GW was SUCH a strong Pub candidate after all…
(Full disclosure here: My hope is that the Dems DO run Kerry/Hillary, and the Pubs run Jeb Bush/Chaney…can you say THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE!!! 
)
-XT
Grover Cleveland, anyone?
Course, that was a whole different era.
Nixon clawed his way back from disgrace by tirelessly doing fundraising and organizing for other candidates. He accumulated so many favors from other California politicians that by 1968 he had made himself the default candidate.
Adlai Stevenson was another famous perrenial loser. How many times did he lose again?
But walk with me a bit, and hear my assumtions, and tell me where I am wrong:
The election will be very close
It will hinge upon winning one or two of the more important states that almost voted Dem last time, such as Iowa, FLA, Ohio, maybe even NM.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statecartcollegelarge.png
CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President
http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm
A “skeleton in the closet” or a 'swiftboating" can turn just enough voters to lose in those critical states.
The Dem’s can’t afford to operate on the assumption that the GoP won’t pull a “swiftboat” or other “dirty trick”.
Thus, as a good chess player thinks more moves ahead than his opponent, so must the Dems, thus the Dems must plan a “what if” for a “swiftboating”. 6. The only way to prevent this is to run someone who has been totally & completely vetted already.
Now, I admit you make a good point about “loser”. It’s not fair, sure, but I admit it could hurt.
Now, if one of those Southern State Governors could win the primary, and carry his own state- PLUS every other state that Kerry win, then maybe. But the “big 3” I listed above all have GoP Govs. Not NM, sure, but they don’t have that many EC votes.
A candidate with roughly Kerry’s views would be fine, but just not Kerry himself. I’ve said the same thing **Lemur **is saying-- nobody likes a loser. Kerry would start off at a disadvantage. He could probably win if Bush were running again, but that’s not saying much. Kerry is a fairly centrists Democrat, but he just didn’t do a good job connecting with people. Hillary is supposedly a lot better in that department, but she still just has too much baggage (deservedly or not).
Let’s just hope Gore doesn’t try to run again. I think the odds of that are less than in Kerry’s case, but imagine having 2 recycled candidates out there. :eek:
Anyway, I think you said it best (either in this thread or the other)-- it’s way too early for meaningful speculation. It’s fun to throw names out there, but so much can happen in the next 18 months or so. Who even heard of John Edwards before 2004, and he didn’t do all that badly.
Who says the election is going to be close? OK, Bush v Gore was close, Bush v Kerry was close. Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Reagan v Mondale, Reagan v Carter, Carter v Ford, Nixon v McGovern, Nixon v Humphry, and Johnson v Goldwater were NOT close.
I don’t buy the idea that we know, here in 2006 that the 2008 election is going to be close. That’s defeatist talk. Of course, we’ve got to see what the climate is like in 2008. But a likeable albeit flawed candidate (see Bill Clinton) is going to do a hell of a lot better than an unlikeable presmeared candidate.
Thing is, those swiftboat tactics wouldn’t have worked against Bill Clinton. People liked him, they knew he wasn’t perfect, but they liked him. Put up a likeable candidate who can think on his feet and has good political instincts, and he’ll shrug off the partisan smears. Not to say he’s going to win, because what if the Republicans put up a likeable candidate who can think on his feet, etc etc.
But in politics you want to play to win, not play not to lose. Bill Clinton had plenty of criticism over his Vietnam-era antics, and he shrugged them off. He came out of the impeachment scandal with higher ratings than before. He turned around the smears of the VRWC and hoist them on their own petard.
If Kerry could eke out a narrow win in 2008, Bill Clinton (were he eligible) could win in a landslide. So, go back to that list of governors, pick out Bill Clinton Jr, and enjoy.
You’re completely right about this. Kerry’s views are certainly not too far left - though of course the Republicans would say otherwise (and the Democrats have this bad habit of listening.) But Kerry himself was bad when it comes to campaign strategy (which is not all his fault, of course - there were other people who were supposed to handle that) and he’s not all that personable. He’s not as bad that way as, say, Dick Cheney or Joe Lieberman, but he’s not warm and fuzzy either.
I think it’s clear that people liked his ideas, though, and they liked the fact that he could speak coherently. He got substantial boosts in his approval ratings after the debates. I think this idea that people don’t want their president to sound too smart and too on top of the issues is false; Kerry did best when he was able to show a contrast between his knowledge of national matters and Bush’s lack thereof. The sort of people who are offended by a presidential candidate who seems smart are not going to be voting for a Democrat no matter what. It’s the middle and the left that we need to aim for, and I think someone who’s a mix of well-spoken like Kerry and personable would be the way to go. And he needs decent campaign strategists behind him.
Exactly. This whole thing will become much clearer once names and faces are out there. It’s interesting to speculate, but I just don’t follow closely enough to guess anything about who the nominees will be at this point.
Has Charles Schumer talked about running? Not that I think he has a chance, since whenever he speaks I get the uncontrollable urge to punch him in the mouth, even if I agree with him, but it seems like he’s really been trying for more national visibility the past couple years.
I don’t think focusing strictly on swiftboat tactics is the way to go, though. Arguably, Kerry might not have lost had the swiftboat attacks not happened. But the election was really, really close. By the same token, he might not have lost if the weather had been different in Ohio. I agree that dirty tricks like that make a difference, but I don’t think they’re the only matter at hand. I think Kerry’s problems were largely strategic; there was a major failure to capitalize on the problems of the Bush administration. He could have campaigned on a promise of responsible leadership; Kerry might not be as huggable as Bill Clinton, but he was well-spoken and when his own charisma was the most decisive - that is, during the televised debates - he gained ground. I don’t think the lovable party animal (like Clinton or Dubya) is the only kind of candidate who can win an election. We’re being majorly short-sighted if we only look at the last couple elections.
Yeah, but on the other hand, I’m not sure I want another Clinton in the White House. Better than Bush, but I think building our party on his sort of center-right politics is a mistake - it means compromising our principles.
Those were both pretty close (a lot closer than your other examples). Clinton was aided by a 3rd party candidate (Perot) that drew off a lot more potential Bush voters than Clinton voters (debateably, at least), and Carter’s victory was slim, considering Ford’s taint from the pardon of Nixon.
The Dems can run Gore or Kerry, again, but they’ll probably lose, if not up against Zombie Hitler or Jeb Bush. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
“There are no second acts in American lives.”- F. Scott Fitzgerald
“Yes, there are.”- Richard Nixon
What do you mean OUR principles, Kemosabe?
A center-right fiscally-responsible freedom-loving party not beholden to the religious right is my dream party. If the Democrats turn themselves into that party I’ll be all over them.
Kerry is looser than who?
Oof. Fair enough.
To be noted:
A: Gore has been on mother-loving fire since he grew the beard.
B: Schumer is running for something constantly. He’d be one of the ‘maybe, we’ll see’ primary types who’d last halfway, I’d think.
“the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera.” - Bob Dole.
C: What amazed me about Kerry was that he never discussed his role in investigating the S&L or Iran-Contra scandals. He broke them both, as I understand it. He could have rode that, and it was just never touched.
And Kerry make a lot of campaign mistakes, so don’t let me make you think it was just about not connecting with people. Joe Klein’s new book does a good job of critiquing the 2004 campaign.
It’s a fine line to walk. You can be smart, but you can’t talk down to people. I think Hillary did that quite a bit in the past, and that still dogs her even though I haven’t heard her in that mode for quite some time. She’s changed her style as well as her politics. And of Course Bill was no slouch in the intellect department, and he had no trouble at all connecting with people-- maybe it was that awe shucks kind of southern demeanor that Bush seems to have as well. Of course Bush is more of “awe, uhhhhhhm, uhhhhhhhh, shucks. Yeah. Shucks.”
Biden wants to run, but I don’t know about Schumer. Schumer likes to grandstand.
I oughta read that. But don’t worry, I’m quite thoroughly aware of all the mistakes Kerry made in his campaign.
I have no scientific statistical data, but I do have some anecdotal junk. I know people who absolutely would not ever ever vote for Hillary Clinton. She is a Clinton. She is evil. She is funny looking. She is too liberal (?). She’s a female. She hates America. I’ve heard plenty of really stupid ignorant reasons, but these sort of people are out there (way out there). I have to wonder what she could possibly do, with people who made up their (tiny little) minds years ago. I guess we all remember the old “impeach Hillary” bumper stickers that popped up during Bill’s administration. You’d think she was the Beast of Revelations or something.
I’d vote for Bill, for Gore, for Kerry, for Feingold, Pelosi, Boxer, I think I know what they are about. There are others, I’d deliberately vote against, based on the past records. But I still don’t know WHO will run. I don’t like uncertainty.
You’re friends with Karl Rove?
